Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Baldemar Perez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States around 1993 at age four. DHS records indicate he entered without inspection, filed an asylum application in 1991 that he withdrew in 2007, and received work authorization seven times between 1995 and 2007. In September 2014, Perez was convicted of DUI and sentenced to 13 days in custody. In November 2024, he was convicted of DUI causing bodily injury and hit-and-run resulting in injury, receiving a sentence of 16 months and eight months, respectively.
Upon his release from California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation custody on January 26, 2026, DHS took him into immigration detention. On September 14, 2026, Perez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting three claims: (1) Fifth Amendment due process violations arising from custodial restraints preventing preparation of his removal defense; (2) government interference with access to counsel in violation of the Fifth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229a(b)(4)(A) and 1362; and (3) unconstitutional custodial restraints under § 2241, including inadequate access to attorney communications, contacts, legal papers, and witnesses. Respondents answered on September 18, 2026, arguing that Perez’s allegations challenge conditions of confinement, which must be brought via a civil rights action rather than habeas corpus. Perez filed a traverse the same day, largely reiterating his claims.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the petition in its entirety. It held that the essence of habeas corpus is an attack on the legality of custody to secure release, not to challenge conditions of confinement. Citing Preiser v. Rodriguez and Rasul v. Bush, the court found that all three of Perez’s claims—due process, access to counsel, and custodial restraints—constitute challenges to the circumstances of his detention rather than the fact or duration of custody.
Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent in Badea v. Cox and Nettles v. Grounds, as well as Hill v. McDonough, the court concluded that such claims must be pursued through a civil rights action. Because Perez, who was represented by counsel, cited no supporting habeas authority and failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief by a preponderance of the evidence under Davis v. Woodford, the court denied all claims without reaching their merits.
Key Takeaways
- Habeas corpus under § 2241 is limited to challenges to the legality or duration of custody, not conditions of confinement.
- Claims regarding access to counsel, legal materials, and preparation of a removal defense are treated as conditions-of-confinement claims requiring a civil rights action.
- The petitioner bears the burden of proving entitlement to habeas relief by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Citation to non-habeas authority and failure to cite on-point habeas precedent weighs against meeting the petitioner’s burden.
- Magistrate judges in the Central District of California may enter final orders denying § 2241 petitions on procedural grounds.
Why It Matters
The decision emphasizes pleading the correct procedural vehicle. A detainee seeking improved lawyer access or fewer communication restrictions is challenging conditions, not the legal basis or duration of custody, when success would not itself require release. Such claims ordinarily belong in a civil-rights action. The court denied habeas relief without adjudicating whether the alleged restrictions were lawful on their merits.
Perez did not ask the court to invalidate the legal authority for immigration custody or identify relief that necessarily shortened its duration. Instead, his claims focused on telephone access, communications with counsel, papers, contacts, and witnesses needed for his removal defense. The court treated each theory according to its practical effect. Because success would improve the circumstances of detention rather than compel release, section 2241 was not the available remedy. The denial therefore preserved the distinction between the writ and a separate conditions lawsuit.